Nominal IndexA v. B 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 620Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra...
Nominal Index
Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621
Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622
Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623
Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Reports/Judgments
Domestic Violence Case Can Be Transferred From Magistrate To Family Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 620
The Bombay High Court held that an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) before a Magistrate seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 can be transferred to a Family Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 12 under the DV Act empowers an aggrieved party or any person on their behalf to file an application to the Magistrate seeking protection orders, residence, monetary reliefs, custody and compensation under Sections 18-22 of the Act.
Justice Kamal Khata held the reliefs under the above Sections are meant to redress the breach of civil rights and even the proceedings in Family Courts are civil in nature.
"In my view, the High Court would have power to transfer the case from the Magistrate to the Family Court whether or not it has jurisdiction to try it to meet the ends of justice, to convenience the parties and more importantly to lead evidence before one Court, specially when the issues may be common, and between the same parties, to save both energy and expense, to save the precious time of Court and prevent conflicting views and multiplicity of proceedings.”
Therefore, the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act by virtue of Section 7(2) and Section 26 of the DV Act read with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court held.
Case Title: Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621
Following a woman a couple of times, abusing and pushing her with the bicycle can be 'annoying' acts but wouldn't constitute an offence under 354 of the IPC, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently held.
The court added that the woman failed to state if the accused touched her inappropriately or pushed a specific body part, embarrassing her.
“As regards following and abusing P.W. 1 (victim), the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman,” it held.
Accordingly, the court acquitted a man who was convicted under Section 354 of the IPC which is the use of assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
Case Title: Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622
The Bombay High Court held that Camptothecin - a cancer drug, cannot be considered a "forest produce" under the law as it undergoes extensive chemical processing from the original raw material obtained from Narkya trees.
The court observed, "It is well known, there is a difference between physical change and chemical change. Physical change can be brought about easily and at the same time, the original material can also be brought back easily, but it is not possible in the case chemical change."
The Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and SC Chandak also held that a pharmaceutical company in possession of Camptothecin, without knowledge or evidence that the original raw material was illegally procured - cannot be prosecuted under wildlife and forest conversation laws.
The court allowed all the writ petitions filed by Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd, formerly known as Dabur Pharma and its manager and quashed all criminal cases against them under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, Indian Penal Code and Bombay Forest Rules.
Case Title: Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a Sessions Court order directing addition of murder charge against three accused in a 2014 dowry death case in Pune observing that accused couldn't be convicted based on stray observations of the medical officer.
“Imagination cannot be taken to such an extent to prosecute the Accused for [such a] serious offence. All throughout it's the case of the prosecution that the victim has committed suicide. On stray observations of the medical officer the Accused cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.”
Justice Prakash D. Naik allowed a criminal revision application filed by the accused - Gurudas Raut, Anita Raut and Archana Raut - who were charged for abetment of suicide of a married woman, Sonal. Her father had lodged a dowry harassment complaint in November 2014 after she was found dead in a well.
Initially, police had filed chargesheet under IPC Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498A (cruelty) and others. The Sessions Court framed charges of abetment to suicide and cruelty in December 2015.
During trial in 2017, the prosecution examined a medical officer who deposed that it takes 8-12 hours for a body to float if the person dies by drowning. Based on this, the complainant sought addition of murder charge under Section 302 IPC.
The Sessions Court allowed addition of 302 charge in August 2022, holding that the medical opinion and other material constituted sufficient ground.
Former IT Analyst Of TCS With Supervisory Responsibilities Not Workman: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former IT analyst of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) observing that the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the judgment, Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's order which held it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case since the petitioner Rohit Dembiwal was not a workman. The petitioner had challenged his alleged wrongful dismissal by the company in 2011.
The court held that the petitioner was involved in managerial, supervisory or administrative functions like approving leave/timesheets of team members, handling their reimbursements, reviewing their appraisals, taking business decisions etc., indicating he is not a mere 'workman'.
Case Title: Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mirza Himayat Baig arrested in 2010 for allegedly being a Lashkar – E - Taiba operative and participating in a terror conspiracy in Nashik.
Baig is already serving a life sentence in the German Bakery Blast Case.
A division bench headed by Justice Revati Mohite Dere granted bail to Baig on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.
Case Title: M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
Bombay High Court held that an employee is entitled to receive subsistence allowance during suspension as per Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, without any condition imposed by the employer requiring the employee to mark daily attendance at the workplace.
Subsistence allowance is given to an employee to maintain himself and his family during suspension in the absence of a salary.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav in a writ petition filed by Hindustan Level Employees Union challenging an award passed by the Labour Court in Daman rejecting the Union's claim for payment of subsistence allowance to its member Natubhai Patel.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
The Bombay High Court held that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her first husband after divorce under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA) despite remarrying.
Justice Rajesh Patil observed that there is no condition under section 3(1)(a) of MWPA disentitling a Muslim woman from getting maintenance after remarriage.
“The protection referred to in the MWPA is unconditional. Nowhere does the said Act intend to limit the protection that is due to the former-wife on the grounds of the remarriage of the former-wife. The essence of the Act is that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage. The fact of divorce between the husband and wife is in itself sufficient for the wife to claim maintenance under section 3 (1) (a)”, the court held.
Case Title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav accused of cheating a client by presenting a forged sessions court bail order for her husband in a murder case.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that it is a serious offense extending beyond the immediate victim, affecting the public's faith in the legal system and thus, no leniency could be granted to the accused.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court extended ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Trent Limited, an entity within the Tata Group, in a case of alleged trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off of its “Zudio” trademark.
Justice RI Chagla had on November 2, 2023 restrained various defendants as well as Ashok Kumar (unknown persons) from using the trademark Zudio and associated artistic work. The court had directed Vodafone, the Department of Telecommunications and various banks to make certain disclosures regarding the mobile numbers and bank accounts allegedly involved in defrauding victims in the name of providing Zudio franchises.
On December 15, 2023, the order was extended till January 4, 2024. This order has been extended again until the next date.
Actor Kangana Ranaut has approached the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the criminal defamation case filed against her by lyricist Javed Akhtar in 2020 and further prayed for the case to be heard along with the cross-complaint she subsequently filed against him.
While the defamation case Akhtar filed against Ranaut is ongoing before the Magistrate in Andheri, Kangana's complaint against Akhtar was stayed by the Sessions Court.
In her writ petition, the Actor stated that both cases had their genesis in a meeting in 2016 therefore they should be tried together.